Was told NOT to teach cursive

[AnnaM]

Maybe I missed this, and sorry if as a HS mom I am not really supposed to post here, but what about teaching your daughter cursive because she WANTS to learn it? Forget all the research about which is faster or whatever. The best thing you can do for your daughter is to engage her interests as much as you can. It can only serve to increase her love of learning.

 

And poo poo to anyone who would think that letting your daughter explore an interest outside of math and science is a waste of time. I would actually feel sorry for the child that has to go through a parent with that mindset. There are alot of things that your child will show interest in over time, that wont neccessarily be "core". Will that parent stomp on everyone of those interests in the name of "not wasting time"?

[MBM]

DD#2 [K'er] has been doing cursive on the whiteboard so I was going to start teaching her. During the PTC today I asked if they could send home some cursive sheets for her to do. The teacher said no. She said it would confuse her reading. That she would confuse Print letters and cursive letters.

 

Would teaching her cursive really confuse her? She knows all her print letters.

 

I doubt very much it would confuse her. The other kids could have trouble reading cursive, perhaps, so if they work on projects together, printing might be a better choice for that reason. I don't think you should stop teaching cursive, though.

 

I also taught my kids cursive around 2nd, 3rd grade--the schools didn't--but I used my own material. They usually printed at school but could write in cursive when the occasion called for it, such as signing their names.

 

I also asked for more challenging work in Math. She again refused stating she is progressing nicely.

 

DD is in the highest levels of group according to skill. Why would you NOT want to challenge her if she is continually saying she is bored and it takes her less than 5 mins to complete a math sheet [connect the dots] she brings home.

 

They might not be challenging her because that would require finding and providing other resources. I think it can be done, though. I did it for my youngest's English class working along with the school's teachers. It was loads of fun for me, took some of the burden off of the teachers, and provided customized learning for the kids. Win-win-win. :)

 

We also used Singapore Math and Rod and Staff at home beginning around 2nd grade and supplemented other subjects that we felt needed a bit more oomph. I believe it made a tremendous difference, and for us, it wasn't too big of a time commitment. I only shared this with some teachers I knew well; otherwise, we kept it quiet.

 

According to her "progress report" she meets everything they have been doing. There is nothing she needs help with other than practicing her printing.

 

So I guess I will continue my before schooling without teacher support.

 

The protocol issue was resolved.

 

School is not always easy to navigate. We found that some years were wonderful and others were not. Good luck.

[In The Great White North]

Quote:

* Despite what others have written about people oohing at a child's pretty cursive, I also think it'd be obviously false that anyone would make a decision on academic placement, or anything else that matters, on such a basis. This is more of an offhand kitchen-sink sort of rationalization in my opinion than the oft-repeated falsehood about a speed advantage.

Actually, I read about a study that was conducted regarding the scores of students SAT Writing Essays. The students who wrote their essays in cursive received a higher score.

 

http://blogs.bostontestprep.com/2006/10/should_your_sat.html

[homemomandnild]

Actually they often teach sursive first in K at private schools. It's better for the brain to learn cursive from the beginning to keep it automatic later. I require all of my LD students to switch to cursive because of all the benefits of it.

[In The Great White North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by priscilla

I noticed these studies where done in the late 80 and early 90s which may affect the results possibly IMO. where schools already dropping the ball on cursive then? It would affect the results IMO. I graduated highschool in the 70s and there might lie the difference since cursive was rigorously taught

 

The study is dated 1998 and was done on students who were proficient in cursive, printing, and mixed styles. Thus the results wouldn't be affected. The cursive-using students in the study habitually used cursive, so had plenty of practice in it.

 

It's wholly inaccurate that cursive is faster. You may prefer it, it may have some benefits for some people of reduced strain, etc. (evidence would be good to see if this were asserted), but it's not faster.

 

 

RE: the studies you referred to in the other thread.

 

I am wondering where they found students who were "proficient" in cursive in 1998? Were there still schools then that did not permit printing or typing?

 

"Proficient" is a relative term. If you can make neat, legibile handwriting, you would consider yourself proficient at it. That has nothing to do with speed. "Proficient" and "efficient" are two different things.

 

I was required to use cursive in school. No printing was permitted on homework and only the "term paper" was allowed to be typed. By 1998, I was doing more typing than writing, and my writing speed had dropped dramatically from when I was taking notes in college. I suspect everyone else's cursive speed had dropped by them too. (Now, with even more typing and even less writing, a sentence or two actually makes my hand tired! And I am proficient at cursive!)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

RE: the studies you referred to in the other thread.

 

I am wondering where they found students who were "proficient" in cursive in 1998? Were there still schools then that did not permit printing or typing?

 

"Proficient" is a relative term. If you can make neat, legibile handwriting, you would consider yourself proficient at it. That has nothing to do with speed. "Proficient" and "efficient" are two different things.

 

I was required to use cursive in school. No printing was permitted on homework and only the "term paper" was allowed to be typed. By 1998, I was doing more typing than writing, and my writing speed had dropped dramatically from when I was taking notes in college. I suspect everyone else's cursive speed had dropped by them too. (Now, with even more typing and even less writing, a sentence or two actually makes my hand tired! And I am proficient at cursive!)

That is what I am wondering too;) I cannot help that suspect that those who graduated 20 years or so after me, may not have gotten the same rigorous cursive instruction that I did:D Therefore, I question the validity of the study. They should compare old timers like me head to head with printers to see who is faster:D I also think one study does not prove anything.

[regentrude]

Cursive is not slower in my experience at all. Perhaps it is slower for those who never mastered cursive. I cannot imagine taking notes in print at all since it is very slow to have to lift the pencil off the paper for every single letter.

:iagree:

It has been my experience that cursive (when mastered - not when written by a beginning learner) is much faster than printing. Provided you have a GOOD writing instrument, such as a fountain pen. You can also write fro much longer times without strain and cramps, because the pen gliding on ink is the best and most ergonomic way to write.

 

Not to mention that even fast cursive usually looks prettier than fast print (again: if the writer has practiced and is proficient in cursive).

After 35 years of writing in cursive I would love to have a speed contest with Iocouno.)

[Twilight Woods]

Maybe I missed this, and sorry if as a HS mom I am not really supposed to post here, but what about teaching your daughter cursive because she WANTS to learn it? Forget all the research about which is faster or whatever. The best thing you can do for your daughter is to engage her interests as much as you can. It can only serve to increase her love of learning.

 

And poo poo to anyone who would think that letting your daughter explore an interest outside of math and science is a waste of time. I would actually feel sorry for the child that has to go through a parent with that mindset. There are alot of things that your child will show interest in over time, that wont neccessarily be "core". Will that parent stomp on everyone of those interests in the name of "not wasting time"?

 

:iagree::D

[snowbeltmom]

I guess it's easy to question the validitly of things that don't agree with your worldview. If there's not an actual basis for such questions, hinting vaguely at them will do. It can be uncomfortable to be wrong.

never mind

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I guess it's easy to question the validitly of things that don't agree with your worldview. If there's not an actual basis for such questions, hinting vaguely at them will do. It can be uncomfortable to be wrong.

 

I do question based on my experience. I also think it is valid to question it based on the fact the schooling has changed dramatically since I was in school in the 60s and 70s in many respects and if I am not mistaken this includes cursive. I also posit that one study is not conclusive at all.

 

You say you are faster in writing but are you using actual printing where each letter is not connected? Connected letters IMO are cursive of which there are many forms.

 

Is it possible I am wrong? Sure:D But again I think they should look at people 50 plus years of age and compare them to printers IMHO to see whether that is true.

Edited October 26, 2011 by priscilla

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I see where you're going with this. Cursive used by proficient users today is faster than printing, which we know from all the proficient users in this thread who teach their children to be proficient. A study from 13 years ago showing the opposite is not possibly valid, though, since there were no proficient users back then. You must be right, since back in 1998 no one must have been proficient, so the study is flawed.

 

Honestly, I don't understand the sarcasm at all. I it is very plausible to me that schooling has changed significantly since the 60s and 70s. I have read of many changes in schooling over the years such as less emphasis on phonics and lack of emphasis on knowing math facts. Cursive is in this mix from what I understand. They are certainly de-emphasizing cursive today and I suspect this trend began awhile ago which would potentially affect a study.

[Twilight Woods]

I would have told the teacher that since she is so against it I'm even more inclined to do it.

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

This is why I homeschool. You can't tame me.

 

 

:D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The sarcasm is justified because you're inventing an effect without providing any verifiable support, then assuming that it skewed the results of a study, to suit your opinion.

 

I am not assuming anything. I still would like to see other studies and I have read of how education has changed over the years. Have you not read of anything that posits that education has changed over the years with different schools of thought such as whole language which put a de-emphasis on the importance of penmanship from what I understand. It is also my understanding in general that one study in itself does not mean something is fact.

This article here references how the rise of whole language decades ago led to the the de-emphasis on writing even in the 60s. I happened to have several old school marms who taught in the 30-50s when I was in school so that may have helped me.

 

http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j19/handwriting.php

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

... except that it's not faster than printing by a master of printing. In fact, it's a bit slower.

 

 

Sorry, you'd lose badly. I use a mixed style FWIW. It served me well through college, law school and beyond. I can write insanely fast when necessary.

 

Again, you are assuming things as well. I have taken notes in lectures at times that have recorded almost every word spoke because I desired to do so and this was all in cursive. I am say the same for myself in regards to the speed of my writing:D

[ElizabethB]

OK...I timed my self to see, and will be posting a poll on the General board with a specific 2 sentences for people to time themselves. I learned cursive in 1st grade and was required to use cursive through 5th or 6th grade. In middle school or high school, I switched to taking my notes in print...I should have timed myself before the switch!

 

On the same passage, and I did cursive 2nd when my hand was a bit tired, I printed it in 104 seconds and wrote it in cursive in 84 seconds. I know the passage well, so knowing the text was not a difference.

 

While I am a fan of cursive in elementary and teaching cursive, I did not expect this result!!

 

I will link to the poll here soon. Here it is:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320065

Edited October 26, 2011 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

After 35 years of writing in cursive I would love to have a speed contest with Iocouno.)

 

Sorry, you'd lose badly. I use a mixed style FWIW. It served me well through college, law school and beyond. I can write insanely fast when necessary.

 

Tee hee, I'd be willing to have a contest with you. ;)

 

I have taken notes in lectures at times that have recorded almost every word spoke because I desired to do so and this was all in cursive. I am say the same for myself in regards to the speed of my writing:D

 

Go take the test and report back! :D

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320065

Edited October 26, 2011 by ElizabethB

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I don't normally post on the Afterschooling Board but was directed to this thread from the Handwriting Test thread on the General Board.

 

For those debating the value of learning cursive...

 

One anecdote from last spring in favor of learning it at some point.

 

The SAT requires you to write in cursive a statement about not cheating etc. on the test. This caused much distress among the students who had never learned cursive beyond their own signatures. The proctors were fairly strict that the students had to do something other than print.

 

Many institutions of higher education have had similar honor code oaths that must be written into exams and signed rather than printed.

 

At what point these systems will catch up with school systems ceasing to teach cursive I have no idea. Clearly not in the educational career of some of last years juniors.

[Iucounu]

I don't normally post on the Afterschooling Board but was directed to this thread from the Handwriting Test thread on the General Board.

 

For those debating the value of learning cursive...

 

One anecdote from last spring in favor of learning it at some point.

 

The SAT requires you to write in cursive a statement about not cheating etc. on the test. This caused much distress among the students who had never learned cursive beyond their own signatures. The proctors were fairly strict that the students had to do something other than print.

 

Many institutions of higher education have had similar honor code oaths that must be written into exams and signed rather than printed.

 

At what point these systems will catch up with school systems ceasing to teach cursive I have no idea. Clearly not in the educational career of some of last years juniors.

My debunkings of the other anecdotal advantages of cursive writing seem to have been erased, though thankfully most of them live on in quotes. This one is no advantage either. It appears that the silly SAT "requirement" isn't enforced, thankfully. It looks like last year's juniors are going to be just fine.

 

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/668920-certification-statement-back-sat.html

[AnnaM]

My debunkings of the other anecdotal advantages of cursive writing seem to have been erased, though thankfully most of them live on in quotes. This one is no advantage either. It appears that the silly SAT "requirement" isn't enforced, thankfully. It looks like last year's juniors are going to be just fine.

 

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/668920-certification-statement-back-sat.html

 

 

You seem to either have a personal beef with cursive or this extraordinary need to be right. What difference does it really make that you need to spend so much time telling everyone how wrong they are and how evil cursive is? It just seems a pointless battle to waste your time on...

 

Here let me help you sleep tonight, YOU ARE RIGHT. There is no NEED to teach cursive and anyone who teaches it needs to have their parental rights revoked immediately!

 

Ok, maybe that was a bit over the top, but seriously, does it really matter this much to you?

[Twilight Woods]

You seem to either have a personal beef with cursive or this extraordinary need to be right. What difference does it really make that you need to spend so much time telling everyone how wrong they are and how evil cursive is? It just seems a pointless battle to waste your time on...

 

Here let me help you sleep tonight, YOU ARE RIGHT. There is no NEED to teach cursive and anyone who teaches it needs to have their parental rights revoked immediately!

 

Ok, maybe that was a bit over the top, but seriously, does it really matter this much to you?

 

:iagree:

[Word Nerd]

 

:lol:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

My debunkings of the other anecdotal advantages of cursive writing seem to have been erased, though thankfully most of them live on in quotes. This one is no advantage either. It appears that the silly SAT "requirement" isn't enforced, thankfully. It looks like last year's juniors are going to be just fine.

 

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/668920-certification-statement-back-sat.html

 

 

Wow--that is a great deal of anger over such a small item.

 

The point of my story was that the inability to use cursive caused a bunch of kids a great deal of stress at a time when they should have been able to focus on the actual exam not worrying about a basic skill like handwriting. Furthermore, I'm not sure I'd call a website message board style commentary by a half dozen or so high school and college students a debunking of this requirement. The fact that the College Board still requires this means they can enforce the rule any time they choose.

 

The point is that there are still places in the world that expect this skill and it may be a few more years before those expectations come into line with current teaching methods.

[Bang!Zoom!]

 

:lol:

 

 

I was going to go hunting for that very same photo WG and paste it here, and ran short on time.

 

Amen.

:lurk5:

 

Carry on....

[Iucounu]

You seem to either have a personal beef with cursive or this extraordinary need to be right. What difference does it really make that you need to spend so much time telling everyone how wrong they are and how evil cursive is?

What difference does it make to the people who make false claims about speed advantages of cursive?

[tristangrace]

Ok, I didn't read all the posts (and apparently missed out on some neat drama that way), but I thought I'd respond to the OP:

 

My 5yo is concurrently learning to write cursive and read manuscript, and it's not a big deal at all. She is teaching herself to print manuscript (I'm only teaching cursive, due to time constraints) and will often ask me, "How do I make a manuscript J?", etc.

 

She is not particularly advanced either academically or with hand-eye coordination, so I say go ahead and teach cursive if you like--it's not gonna create problems for your kid.

[caedmyn]

What difference does it make to the people who make false claims about speed advantages of cursive?

 

It obviously IS faster for some people. If you don't want to teach it, don't teach it...that doesn't mean it cannot have value for others. You seem quite set on proving that learning cursive NEVER has value and CANNOT be faster than printing.

 

IMHO, the process of learning cursive is valuable if for no other reason than because it introduces the concept of connecting letters together...I suspect it's generally faster for most people to connect letters together than to print each one individually, whether or not you actually use cursive to connect letter together.

[Canadianmumof5]

Pass the bean dip and move on.

Agree to disagree.

Frankly, I am surprised that someone who is relatively new to the boards has been so aggressive/argumentative with such a topic :confused:

[Critterfixer]

Here's a thought. If the teacher doesn't want cursive taught, I'd teach calligraphy. Seriously, who can hate calligraphy?:tongue_smilie:

[Iucounu]

You seem quite set on proving that learning cursive NEVER has value and CANNOT be faster than printing.

Not really. I simply point out that it is false to claim that cursive is faster than printing... no matter how uncomfortable that makes people who make that claim. Facts are facts; repeated falsehoods without basis are not facts.

[AnnaM]

Last Word!

 

 

Sorry couldn't help myself.

[GingerPoppy]

Last Word!

 

 

Sorry couldn't help myself.

:D

[Iucounu]

Last Word!

 

Sorry couldn't help myself.

 

Yes, we already know.

[ChristineW]

I am a lefty. I hate cursive with the power of a thousand suns. I'm glad that it isn't emphasized in schools any more.

[Iucounu]

I am a lefty. I hate cursive with the power of a thousand suns. I'm glad that it isn't emphasized in schools any more.

There is scientific evidence not only that cursive is not faster than printing, but that it is a bit slower as a writing method. I linked to this earlier in the thread, as well as including a link showing that one of the blog entries cited as "proof" of the benefits of cursive was without any support, but my links were removed. Don't be surprised if your post is removed as well.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Iucounu

[Jen500]

I wonder what the difference is between getting the last word in and being a thread killer. :D

[AnnaM]

Don't argue with me. I am right. I posted several links that prove I am always right, but they have now been deleted. I suppose I will just have to go blog about how right I am.

[Joy at Home]

There is scientific evidence not only that cursive is not faster than printing, but that it is a bit slower as a writing method. I linked to this earlier in the thread, as well as including a link showing that one of the blog entries cited as "proof" of the benefits of cursive was without any support, but my links were removed. Don't be surprised if your post is removed as well.

 

How does a post just go *poof*? You can tell if a mod deletes a post, but how could yours just vanish? That's concerning . . .

 

Lisa

[Dana]

How does a post just go *poof*? You can tell if a mod deletes a post, but how could yours just vanish? That's concerning . . .

 

Lisa

 

Actually, I've seen it happen before - and with no note.

They usually do it with spam but it's happened with other posts.

[TracyR]

Cursive is being taken out of school curriculums today because teachers don't have the time to teach it anymore. Being because they are so busy teaching kids to the test. I know Hawaii and one other state have totally taken cursive out of the curriculum.

 

I know some teachers don't want to bother reading a students cursive either. I know my daughter's 6th grade teacher told the kids last year not to write in cursive at all.

I really think its a shame because then children will have to depend on others to read old documents some day. Such as the Declaration of INdepdence , Bill of Rights, etc. Here I go on a rant.

Really its about keeping the kids at the same level and not wanting to bother. Really that's it.

 

If you want to teach her cursive. Then do it. Don't wait for a brick and mortar school teacher to okay it beyond the level they are at anyways.

 

P.S. yes cursive writing IS faster. I know without a doubt that I write much faster with cursive than I do with printing any day of the week. Printing takes way to much time to do.

Edited October 30, 2011 by TracyR

[Iucounu]

No, cursive is not faster. I've posted links to scientific evidence that that is false. So far, the only "proof" of the speed or other advantages of cursive has been posts on blogs, one of them selling cursive materials. This is not real evidence; anyone can post all sorts of falsehoods on a blog.

 

It also doesn't prove anything when a particular person claims anonymously to be faster with cursive. An anecdote is not data. You simply can't draw any conclusions about the trelative merits of a writing system from the story of a happy fan of one system. What IS evidence is a systematic comparison, after a controlled assessment, of the speeds of people who are competent in different writing styles.

 

I'm guessing that there is not a shred of scientific evidence showing that cursive is faster, since nobody has posted any. Anyone? Bueller? :) I've posted clear evidence to the contrary.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No, cursive is not faster. I've posted links to scientific evidence that that is false. So far, the only "proof" of the speed or other advantages of cursive has been posts on blogs, one of them selling cursive materials. This is not real evidence; anyone can post all sorts of falsehoods on a blog.

 

It also doesn't prove anything when a particular person claims anonymously to be faster with cursive. An anecdote is not data. You simply can't draw any conclusions about the trelative merits of a writing system from the story of a happy fan of one system. What IS evidence is a systematic comparison, after a controlled assessment, of the speeds of people who are competent in different writing styles.

 

I'm guessing that there is not a shred of scientific evidence showing that cursive is faster, since nobody has posted any. Anyone? Bueller? :) I've posted clear evidence to the contrary.

 

I am firm believer in science too but you have only posted one result Also, what was the definition of proficient in cursive and how much training and work where these students required to do in 1998? There is a difference between being minimally proficient and well versed in something. As for studies backing up cursive, perhaps none have been done especially when some education specialists simply want to drop cursive. I was also always taught that one study does not prove anything. It is a start but it needs to be reproduced. I also think this sort of study needs to carefully examine what proficient means since it can have many different meanings and/or levels IMO.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Totally not part of the discussion...but Priscilla is such a pretty name. I have an aunt named Priscilla. :D

 

Why thank you:D